Usability of English note-taking applications in a foreign language learning context

References

• Abowd, G. (1999). Classroom 2000: An experiment with the instrumentation of a living educational environment. IBM Systems Journal, 38(4), 508–530.
   Google Scholar
• Akbari, R., & Hosseini, K. (2008). The relationship between multiple intelligences and language learning strategy use. System, 36(2), 123–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arslan, R.Ş., & Şahin-Kızıl, A. (2010). How can the use of blog software facilitate the writing process of English language learners? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 183–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayer, W.W., & Milson, J.L. (1993). The effect of notetaking and underlining on achievement in middle school life science. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20(1), 91–95.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A.D. (2007). Working memory, thought and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, A., & Koedinger, K. (2006). Evaluating the effect of technology on note-taking and learning. Proceedings of the CHI'06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 520–525).
   Google Scholar
• Carrell, P.A., Dunkel P., & Mollaun, P. (2002). The effects of note taking, lecture length and topic on the listening component of TOEFL 2000 (Report No. RM-02-04). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Cushion, S. (2005). A software development approach for computer assisted language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 273–286.
   Google Scholar
• Dror, I.E. (2007). Land mines and gold mines in cognitive technologies. In I.E. Dror (Ed.), Cognitive technologies and the pragmatics of cognition (pp. 1–7). Amsterdam: John Benjamin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dror, I.E., & Harnad, S. (2008). Offloading cognition onto cognitive technology. In I.E. Dror & S. Harnad (Eds.), Distributed cognition: How cognitive technology extends our minds (pp. 1–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dunkel, P., & Davy, S. (1989). The heuristic of lecture notetaking: Perceptions of American & international students regarding the value & practice of notetaking. English for Specific Purposes, 8(1), 33–35.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrman, M.E., Leaver, B.L., & Oxford, R.L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System, 31, 313–330.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fajardo, C.P. (1996). Note-taking: A useful device. English Teaching Forum, 34(2), 22–28.
   Google Scholar
• Hemard, D. (2004). Enhancing online CALL design: The case for evaluation. ReCALL, 16(02), 502–519.
   Google Scholar
• Heller, I. (2005). Learner experiences and CALL-tool usability – evaluating the Chemnitz InternetGrammar 1. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(1–2), 119–142.
   Google Scholar
• Holcomb, R., & Tharp, A. (2009). What users say about software usability. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 3(1), 49–78.
   Google Scholar
• Karbalaei, A., & Rajyashree, K.S. (2009). The effect of reading strategy training on university ESL learner's reading comprehension. Language in India, 9(7), 10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Katayama, A.D., & Robinson, D.H. (2000). Getting students “partially” involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(2), 119–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiewra, K.A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20(1), 22–23.
   Google Scholar
• Kiewra, K.A. (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1(2), 147–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilickaya, F., & Cokal-Karadas, D. (2009). The effect of note-taking on university students’ listening comprehension of lectures. Kastamonu Education Journal, 17(1), 47–56.
   Google Scholar
• King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laidlaw, E.N., Richard, S.L., & McLaughlin, T.F. (1993). The effects of notetaking and self-questioning on quiz performance. Science Education, 77(1), 75–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61–82. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09588221.2011.631142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linn, M.C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liou, H.C. (2012). The roles of Second Life in a college computer-assisted language learning (CALL) course in Taiwan, ROC. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(4), 365–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makany, T., Kemp, J., & Dror, I. (2009). Optimising the use of note-taking as an external cognitive aid for increasing learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 619–635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills, N. (2011). Situated learning through social networking communities: The development of joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a shared repertoire. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 345–368.
   Google Scholar
• Nwokoreze, U.N.D. (1990). Note-taking. English Teaching Forum, 33(2), 39–40.
   Google Scholar
• O’Malley, & Chamot. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peggy, V.M., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students’ theory of note-taking derived from their perceptions of note-taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 323–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. (2012). EFL learner collaborative interaction in second life. ReCALL, 24(01), 20–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piolat, A., Olive, T. & Kellogg, R.T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note-taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plass, J.L. (1998). Design and evaluation of the user interface of foreign language multimedia software: A cognitive approach. Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 35–45.
   Google Scholar
• Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability and supporting sociability. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S., & Carey, T. (1994). Human–computer interaction: Concepts and design. Harlow: Addison Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Quesenbery, W. (2006). Getting the most out of a usability test: Effective note-taking and analysis. A workshop for User Friendly 2006. Retrieved from http://wqusability.com/handouts/notes&analysis.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rahmani, M., & Sadeghi, K. (2011). Effects of note-taking training on reading comprehension and recall. Reading, 11(2), 116–128.
   Google Scholar
• Rickards, J.P., & McCormick, C.B. (1988). Effect of interspersed conceptual prequestions on note-taking in listening comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 592–594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinehart, S.D., & Thomas, K.F. (1993). Summarization ability and text recall by novice studiers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 32(4), 24–32.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, D.H., Katayama, A.D., Beth, A., Odom, S., Hsieh, Y.P., & Vanderveen, A. (2006). Increasing text comprehension and graphic note taking using a partial graphic organizer. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 103–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rott, S., & Weber, E.D. (2013). Preparing students to use Wiki software as a collaborative learning tool. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 179–203.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of usability testing. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W.A., & Reiser, B.J. (1997). Evolving explanations in high school biology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. pp. 24–28.
   Google Scholar
• Shimmerlik, S.M., & Nolan, J.D. (1976). Reorganization and the recall of prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(6), 779–786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shute, V.J., & Glaser, R. (1991). An intelligent tutoring system for exploring principles of economics. Improving inquiry in social science: A volume in honor of Lee J. Cronbach (pp. 333–336).
   Google Scholar
• Spires, H.A. (1992). Learning from a lecture: Effects of comprehension monitoring. Literacy Research and Instruction, 32(2), 19–30.
   Google Scholar
• Squires, D., & Preece, J. (1996). Usability and learning: Evaluating the potential of educational software. Computers & Education, 27(1), 15–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, V. (2006). Second life in education and language learning. TESL-EJ, 10(3). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej39/int.html
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, V., Sussex, R., & Tuman, W.V. (1986). A bibliography of computer-aided language learning. New York, NY: AMS Press. Previously appeared as ERIC ED# 254 072.
   Google Scholar
• Trafton, G.J., & Trickett, S.B. (2001). Note-taking for self-explanation and problem solving. Human-Computer Interaction, 16(1), 1–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler, S., & Wheeler, D. (2009). Using Wikis to promote quality learning in teacher training. Learning, media and technology. Media and Technology, 34(1), 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, B.Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, C.J. (1996). Note-taking strategies and traces of cognition in language learning. RELC Journal, 27(1), 89–102.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, J.B., & Jacobs, J.S. (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 232–247.
   Google Scholar
• Winke, P., Gass, S., & Sydorenko, T. (2010). The effects of captioning videos used for foreign language listening activities. Language Learning and Technology, 14(1), 65–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar